Op Ed in Wall St Journal: decriminalise cannabis. Where's the liberal Irish Media?

[tfy&qa]

absolutely my man, provides the opportunity to discuss at the very least! You understand what he was alluding too, by attempting to pedestal himself? I think you misread the spaces between his words if you get me, but maybe I made a mistake, but what do you, its no worries. I like being wrong, gives a chance to improve.
Ask bob himself there. Bob do you or do you not have a problem with people freely using this substance of there own volition, medicinally or otherwise?

edit - I mean you are right like, I am deffo off the boil as far as whats being discussed here, but its all relevant...

[juanpablo]

Could have guessed that already bobert, its clear you have some prejudice about delinquent hippy stoners, but as i speculated elsewhere you'd be surprised just how many people enjoy a toot.

[JCSkinner]

For my tuppence worth I would have no problem with the decriminalisation of cannabis but absolutely Not for coke and heroin.

The general consensus among anti-prohibitionists is that heroin should be provided by the state in a secure and regulated method akin to current methadone maintenance programmes and not be generally legally available.
Equally, the addictive element of cocaine, and especially rock forms, is such that no sensible anti-prohibition advocates that I know of are in favour of legalisation there either.
But there is clear hypocrisy in having cannabis illegal while much more dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol are freely available. And that also applies to other substances which have been demonised beyond their actual harm capacity, such as LSD and ecstasy.
They too should be decriminalised, licensed for sale akin to alcohol or tobacco, and their usage limited by age and by activity (ie no working or driving or minding kids while wasted.)

[cyberianpan]

For my tuppence worth I would have no problem with the decriminalisation of cannabis but absolutely Not for coke and heroin.

Mmmmm this thread is not so much about the substantive issue - but more so about the lack of media coverage

If 3 prominent ex heads of state can write an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal of all places... why not our media ?

We can see that in the UK crime is rising during the recession
Times: Ministers’ worst fears confirmed as the recession fuels crime surge

In Mexico they nearly have a drugs civil war
CNN: Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'

In Ireland we're well aware that Garda overtime is cut yet we've serious gang violence problems in Dublin & Limerick

I've previously asked about our politicians meekness:
Which of our politicians would decriminalise cannabis ?

The time is ripe now for a national debate - where is our media ?

cYp

[JCSkinner]

Someone 'newsworthy', for want of a better term, would have to kick off the debate by calling for an end to prohibition.
Or Irish doctors would need to present some evidence to support an end to prohibition.
There needs to be something to ignite the debate. The evidence of the necessity for an end to prohibition has been presented in the past and ignored.
We have a Crack Cocaine conference on at Croke Park today, with the government present. That's an in-house talking shop for prohibitionists, basically. There won't be any new ideas coming out of that.
But if someone was to denounce it as such, whether they be a senior medic, someone prominent in addiction services here or even just some 'celeb' non-entity like Ryan Tubridy, Podge and Rodge or Bob Geldof (I'm picking names at random here, not ascribing opinions to anyone), then you might see a debate begin in the media.
But it needs a catalyst. And then it needs coherent arguing from the anti-prohibition lobby on a continual basis.

[H.R. Haldeman]

The general consensus among anti-prohibitionists is that heroin should be provided by the state in a secure and regulated method akin to current methadone maintenance programmes and not be generally legally available.
Equally, the addictive element of cocaine, and especially rock forms, is such that no sensible anti-prohibition advocates that I know of are in favour of legalisation there either.
But there is clear hypocrisy in having cannabis illegal while much more dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol are freely available. And that also applies to other substances which have been demonised beyond their actual harm capacity, such as LSD and ecstasy.
They too should be decriminalised, licensed for sale akin to alcohol or tobacco, and their usage limited by age and by activity (ie no working or driving or minding kids while wasted.)

This is precisely the muddled thinking that has lead to the war on drugs being such an unmitigated disaster. We need to rid ourselves of these meaningless value-judgements (which drugs are "better" or "worse" or "stronger" or what is and is not hypocritical).

Instead, we need a pragmatic, intelligent, effective drug strategy. That means "legalised" heroin along the lines you explain, and all others illegal/as is. It doesn't matter that heroin is a "harder" drug. It matters how we fix the devastation it causes. Cannabis can never, ever cause such devastation, so "extreme" measures to control it (like legalisation) are not necessary. It has nothing to do with the hardness of the drug - the opposite in fact...the more dangerous the drug, the greater the need to think radically. It is counter-intuitive but endlessly sensible once one thinks about it for any time.

[JCSkinner]

This is precisely the muddled thinking that has lead to the war on drugs being such an unmitigated disaster. We need to rid ourselves of these meaningless value-judgements (which drugs are "better" or "worse" or "stronger" or what is and is not hypocritical).

It's anything but muddled. I base that on The Lancet's paper on the topic relating to 20 common drugs of abuse in Britain. Their methodology examined addictivity, risk of death, general physiological, psychological and behavioural harm levels and impact upon society in general.
While I sort of agree with you that pat ranking of substances isn't tremendously helpful a lot of the time, I believe that particular study went a long way to demythologising certain commonly held beliefs about certain drugs, in particular that alcohol and tobacco cause much more damage than cannabis, LSD or ecstasy.

Instead, we need a pragmatic, intelligent, effective drug strategy. That means "legalised" heroin along the lines you explain, and all others illegal/as is. It doesn't matter that heroin is a "harder" drug. It matters how we fix the devastation it causes. Cannabis can never, ever cause such devastation, so "extreme" measures to control it (like legalisation) are not necessary. It has nothing to do with the hardness of the drug - the opposite in fact...the more dangerous the drug, the greater the need to think radically. It is counter-intuitive but endlessly sensible once one thinks about it for any time.

I agree with most of that, obviously.
But the arguments in relation to legalising or decriminalising cannabis are less to do with harm reduction (though legal cannabis would not be so polluted as illegal cannabis is) as they are to do with personal human liberties, the idiocy of seeking to ban a plant and the hypocrisy of banning it while alcohol and tobacco remain freely available.

[iartaoiseach]

This is precisely the muddled thinking that has lead to the war on drugs being such an unmitigated disaster. We need to rid ourselves of these meaningless value-judgements (which drugs are "better" or "worse" or "stronger" or what is and is not hypocritical).

Instead, we need a pragmatic, intelligent, effective drug strategy. That means "legalised" heroin along the lines you explain, and all others illegal/as is. It doesn't matter that heroin is a "harder" drug. It matters how we fix the devastation it causes. Cannabis can never, ever cause such devastation, so "extreme" measures to control it (like legalisation) are not necessary. It has nothing to do with the hardness of the drug - the opposite in fact...the more dangerous the drug, the greater the need to think radically. It is counter-intuitive but endlessly sensible once one thinks about it for any time.

good post.
another rubbish argument often forwarded by the prohibitionists is that everyone who smokes a joint is responsible for the murder of innocents, yet they oppose allowing users to grow their own thereby cutting the profis of the scummy dealers who are also the ones who contaminate the supply in order to maximise profit. if folks were allowed to grow their own these a-holes would be out of the business in a flash.
if chocolate was banned in the morning I guarantee the likes of john gilligan would be flogging it by midday - cut with whatever they could poison it with. but I suppose commonsense in politicians is a rare commodity. I live in hope.

[Elvis Parsley]

good post.
another rubbish argument often forwarded by the prohibitionists is that everyone who smokes a joint is responsible for the murder of innocents, yet they oppose allowing users to grow their own thereby cutting the profis of the scummy dealers who are also the ones who contaminate the supply in order to maximise profit. if folks were allowed to grow their own these a-holes would be out of the business in a flash.
if chocolate was banned in the morning I guarantee the likes of john gilligan would be flogging it by midday - cut with whatever they could poison it with. but I suppose commonsense in politicians is a rare commodity. I live in hope.

MMM The mention of chocolate is giving me the munchies

[Fish]

The general consensus among anti-prohibitionists is that heroin should be provided by the state in a secure and regulated method akin to current methadone maintenance programmes and not be generally legally available.
Equally, the addictive element of cocaine, and especially rock forms, is such that no sensible anti-prohibition advocates that I know of are in favour of legalisation there either.
But there is clear hypocrisy in having cannabis illegal while much more dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol are freely available. And that also applies to other substances which have been demonised beyond their actual harm capacity, such as LSD and ecstasy.
They too should be decriminalised, licensed for sale akin to alcohol or tobacco, and their usage limited by age and by activity (ie no working or driving or minding kids while wasted.)

I understand you logic but firstly methadone allows people addicted to heroin to lead relatively normal lives so for me allowing heroin in programmes akin to methadone treatment is a non starter for me.

As to the rest of your post some will say you are being disingenuous, however I would support any programme that would take the scumbag element out of the manufacture and sale of LSD and ecstasy due to the muck they have been shown to mix such substances with. Lets be clear though I wouldn't advocate anyone taking such drugs but if people want to that's their business in my opinion and would rather see some quality control over the purity and safety of them rather than leaving it to the dregs of society.

That said though I don't see how you could police people in their own homes minding children on such drugs and this is the quandry that legislators would face.